Under God

[Arkady]

As most of you probably know, the Pledge of Allegiance includes the theological assertion that our nation exists "under God" because during the Red Scare politicians modified the Pledge to incorporate that religious test. There have been several challenges to it, on the obvious grounds that Congress has no business encouraging citizens to make a statement of religious dogma that way, but thus far, no court has had the guts to overturn that law. I'm not expecting that to change, but there is a new challenge in the works, in Massachusetts, with a slight variation: they'll make a claim based on equal protection, rather than the first amendment's prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Setting aside the legal question, consider the matter from a moral perspective. Morally, you should not do unto others things that you wouldn't want them to do unto you. So, if you're a monotheist, the test for the morality of supporting the "under God" phrase is to picture yourself and your kids in a society where monotheists were in the minority. If you were in a majority-atheist country, for example, would you want that majority to pass a law encouraging citizens (including your kids in public school) to recite the Pledge with the phrase "under no God." If not, then it is immoral for you to support a similar law with the phrase "under God," since that is doing unto the atheist minority (and assorted other non-monotheists) something you would not want done unto you if the roles were reversed.

 

[Colorforms]

As most of you probably know, the Pledge of Allegiance includes the theological assertion that our nation exists "under God" because during the Red Scare politicians modified the Pledge to incorporate that religious test. There have been several challenges to it, on the obvious grounds that Congress has no business encouraging citizens to make a statement of religious dogma that way, but thus far, no court has had the guts to overturn that law. I'm not expecting that to change, but there is a new challenge in the works, in Massachusetts, with a slight variation: they'll make a claim based on equal protection, rather than the first amendment's prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Setting aside the legal question, consider the matter from a moral perspective. Morally, you should not do unto others things that you wouldn't want them to do unto you. So, if you're a monotheist, the test for the morality of supporting the "under God" phrase is to picture yourself and your kids in a society where monotheists were in the minority. If you were in a majority-atheist country, for example, would you want that majority to pass a law encouraging citizens (including your kids in public school) to recite the Pledge with the phrase "under no God." If not, then it is immoral for you to support a similar law with the phrase "under God," since that is doing unto the atheist minority (and assorted other non-monotheists) something you would not want done unto you if the roles were reversed.

Personally, being someone who doesn't worship a God, so to speak, I don't care if the phrase is in the pledge or not. It's not going to convert non-believers, and it's not pushing a state run religion.

People who have a problem with this phrase need to take courses in creative relaxation.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

As most of you probably know, the Pledge of Allegiance includes the theological assertion that our nation exists "under God" because during the Red Scare politicians modified the Pledge to incorporate that religious test. There have been several challenges to it, on the obvious grounds that Congress has no business encouraging citizens to make a statement of religious dogma that way, but thus far, no court has had the guts to overturn that law. I'm not expecting that to change, but there is a new challenge in the works, in Massachusetts, with a slight variation: they'll make a claim based on equal protection, rather than the first amendment's prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Setting aside the legal question, consider the matter from a moral perspective. Morally, you should not do unto others things that you wouldn't want them to do unto you. So, if you're a monotheist, the test for the morality of supporting the "under God" phrase is to picture yourself and your kids in a society where monotheists were in the minority. If you were in a majority-atheist country, for example, would you want that majority to pass a law encouraging citizens (including your kids in public school) to recite the Pledge with the phrase "under no God." If not, then it is immoral for you to support a similar law with the phrase "under God," since that is doing unto the atheist minority (and assorted other non-monotheists) something you would not want done unto you if the roles were reversed.

Ugh.

Another "Let's ignore all American tradition and history" thread questioning how anyone could dare utter the word "God".

Yawn. You can't separate an egg and a yolk once they have been mixed. Christianity heavily influenced and pretty much built Western Society.. and America was no exception.

However, today America doesn't rule by the Ten Commandments, force people to pray, force reading the bible... it just happens to reference a major, if not the most, prominent influence in its pledge. My goodness!

 

[Craig]

Ugh.

Another "Let's ignore all American tradition and history" thread questioning how anyone could dare utter the word "God".

Yawn. You can't separate an egg and a yolk once they have been mixed. Christianity heavily influenced and pretty much built Western Society.. and America was no exception.

However, today America doesn't rule by the Ten Commandments, force people to pray, force reading the bible... it just happens to reference a major, if not the most, prominent influence in its pledge. My goodness!

If one wishes to speak of tradition, or finding ways to relax, why cannot we consider a return to the original pledge? It existed for 60 years without the words under God. It has existed for 60 years with them and we all know they were added due to the godless "red scare".

Regardless if the words under god are in it or not, what is the point of the pledge?

 

[resident_evil]

"Y'all shut up before ya get pistil whipped. Ya commie bastards." lol

Is that what you are afraid of. Seems to be.

 

[Colorforms]

If one wishes to speak of tradition, or finding ways to relax, why cannot we consider a return to the original pledge? It existed for 60 years without the words under God. It has existed for 60 years with them and we all know they were added due to the godless "red scare".

Regardless if the words under god are in it or not, what is the point of the pledge?

The point of the pledge is to remind people that they are a part of something. They aren't living their lives in a vacuum, and that up to this point, people sacrificed a great deal, including their lives, so that this experiment could proceed.

 

[Craig]

The point of the pledge is to remind people that they are a part of something. They aren't living their lives in a vacuum, and that up to this point, people sacrificed a great deal, including their lives, so that this experiment could proceed.

I disagree. I believe the point of the pledge is to indoctrinate children...and to sell flags.

 

[Colorforms]

I disagree. I believe the point of the pledge is to indoctrinate children...and to sell flags.

The point of school is to indoctrinate children. Liberals know that and have used it to their advantage for decades. It's why we have "labor studies" and "liberal arts" courses.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

As most of you probably know, the Pledge of Allegiance includes the theological assertion that our nation exists "under God" because during the Red Scare politicians modified the Pledge to incorporate that religious test. There have been several challenges to it, on the obvious grounds that Congress has no business encouraging citizens to make a statement of religious dogma that way, but thus far, no court has had the guts to overturn that law. I'm not expecting that to change, but there is a new challenge in the works, in Massachusetts, with a slight variation: they'll make a claim based on equal protection, rather than the first amendment's prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Setting aside the legal question, consider the matter from a moral perspective. Morally, you should not do unto others things that you wouldn't want them to do unto you. So, if you're a monotheist, the test for the morality of supporting the "under God" phrase is to picture yourself and your kids in a society where monotheists were in the minority. If you were in a majority-atheist country, for example, would you want that majority to pass a law encouraging citizens (including your kids in public school) to recite the Pledge with the phrase "under no God." If not, then it is immoral for you to support a similar law with the phrase "under God," since that is doing unto the atheist minority (and assorted other non-monotheists) something you would not want done unto you if the roles were reversed.

Under God wasn't in the original pledge. It was added in 1954.

Here's another tidbit....it was written by a Socialist.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy who was a Baptist minister and a socialist. specifically a Christian socialist. LOL

Christian socialism is a form of religious socialism based on the teachings of Jesus. Many Christian socialists believe capitalism to be idolatrous and rooted in greed, which some Christian denominations consider a mortal sin.[1] Christian socialists identify the cause of inequality to be associated with the greed that they associate with capitalism.[1]

 

[Figjam]

Ugh.

Another "Let's ignore all American tradition and history" thread questioning how anyone could dare utter the word "God".

Yawn. You can't separate an egg and a yolk once they have been mixed. Christianity heavily influenced and pretty much built Western Society.. and America was no exception.

However, today America doesn't rule by the Ten Commandments, force people to pray, force reading the bible... it just happens to reference a major, if not the most, prominent influence in its pledge. My goodness!

"In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today."

...reading about Eisenhower, it is hard to think that he would imagine how we have devolved into our current state of being. If he had, I expect he never would have supported the change...

...I agree with CF above, "...It's not going to convert non-believers, and it's not pushing a state run religion.

People who have a problem with this phrase need to take courses in creative relaxation."

 

[Charcat]

Leave it alone....If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

 

[resident_evil]

Under God wasn't in the original pledge. It was added in 1954.

Here's another tidbit....it was written by a Socialist.

Sounds about right. It is basically a collectivizing claptrap set of words. Without the 'under God' part of it I simply wouldn't give a shit for them.

 

[Craig]

The point of school is to indoctrinate children. Liberals know that and have used it to their advantage for decades. It's why we have "labor studies" and "liberal arts" courses.

Yet you just said the pledge, which we learn in school, is to remind you that you belong to something bigger and to make folks understand the sacrifice others made. So...you, like John McCain, are arguing both sides of the story. Indoctrination is how we learn we are part of something, but also how we get "liberal arts". These are what was previously referred to The Humanities.

One of our early leaders considered them important...


The science of government is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take place of, indeed to exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

John Adams

 

[Utopianfizzle]

It's so generic I'm not sure it matters.

On religion as a whole, I don't see how one God should be considered "the God" whereas another person born in another country with a different prevailing religion should have their God deemed less valid than another. For me, I'm not a fan of organized religion as a political mantra of any kind, nor the fables, control mechanisms, greed, and problems (wars) that history has shown them to promote/incite. It's foolish.

If someone wishes to believe in a God, more power to them. If they wish to organize with like minded people and then move to promote a cause (politically) which induces a controlling focus on others who do not share their religion/views then they should become a taxed organization. I look at religion just like sexual preferences, I don't care nor do I wish to have it pushed in my face, nor be considered a villain if I don't openly support your religion, sex, race, or any other claims for special treatment.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Sounds about right. It is basically a collectivizing claptrap set of words. Without the 'under God' part of it I simply wouldn't give a shit for them.

I pledge allegiance to my self, my family and my friends.

Period.

 

[Jen]

As most of you probably know, the Pledge of Allegiance includes the theological assertion that our nation exists "under God" because during the Red Scare politicians modified the Pledge to incorporate that religious test. There have been several challenges to it, on the obvious grounds that Congress has no business encouraging citizens to make a statement of religious dogma that way, but thus far, no court has had the guts to overturn that law. I'm not expecting that to change, but there is a new challenge in the works, in Massachusetts, with a slight variation: they'll make a claim based on equal protection, rather than the first amendment's prohibition on laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Setting aside the legal question, consider the matter from a moral perspective. Morally, you should not do unto others things that you wouldn't want them to do unto you. So, if you're a monotheist, the test for the morality of supporting the "under God" phrase is to picture yourself and your kids in a society where monotheists were in the minority. If you were in a majority-atheist country, for example, would you want that majority to pass a law encouraging citizens (including your kids in public school) to recite the Pledge with the phrase "under no God." If not, then it is immoral for you to support a similar law with the phrase "under God," since that is doing unto the atheist minority (and assorted other non-monotheists) something you would not want done unto you if the roles were reversed.

The phrase "under God" does not violate the Amendment that says that government may not force a religion on its people. It is NOT going to cause writhing (or any other form of) pain on any one of the tiny percent of the people who are atheists.

If that is deemed worthy of a fight to atheists then they are certainly lucky that they don't have any truly important things to fight about.

 

[resident_evil]

the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy who was a Baptist minister and a socialist. specifically a Christian socialist. LOL

Christian socialism is a form of religious socialism based on the teachings of Jesus. Many Christian socialists believe capitalism to be idolatrous and rooted in greed, which some Christian denominations consider a mortal sin.[1] Christian socialists identify the cause of inequality to be associated with the greed that they associate with capitalism.[1]

So what? Al Sharpton is a minster (reverend) too. Hardly ever makes him right.

 

[Colorforms]

Yet you just said the pledge, which we learn in school, is to remind you that you belong to something bigger and to make folks understand the sacrifice others made. So...you, like John McCain, are arguing both sides of the story. Indoctrination is how we learn we are part of something, but also how we get "liberal arts". These are what was previously referred to The Humanities.

One of our early leaders considered them important...


The science of government is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take place of, indeed to exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

John Adams

Hardly. There is nothing wholly good and nothing wholly evil. Indoctrination can be used for both. It's in everything we see and hear, from saying the pledge to watching a Pepsi commercial. You're equating the pledge to a Pepsi commercial, and that just isn't the case.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

So what? Al Sharpton is a minster (reverend) too. Hardly ever makes him right.

I can't dispute the Christian socialist position. they have it absolutely right.

Christian socialism is a form of religious socialism based on the teachings of Jesus. Many Christian socialists believe capitalism to be idolatrous and rooted in greed, which some Christian denominations consider a mortal sin.[1] Christian socialists identify the cause of inequality to be associated with the greed that they associate with capitalism.[1]